A+ Guide to Hardware 9th Edition

Andrews Solutions Manual

Visit to download the full and correct content document:
https://testbankdeal.com/download/a-guide-to-hardware-9th-edition-andrews-solution
s-manual/
A+ Guide to Hardware 9th Edition Andrews Solutions Manual

Chapter 2 Solutions

Reviewing the Basics

1. When taking a computer apart, why is it important to not stack boards on top of each

other?

Answer: You could accidentally dislodge a chip.

2. Why is it important to remove loose jewelry before working inside a computer case?

Answer: Because the jewelry might get caught in cables and components as you work.

3. When assembling a desktop computer, which do you install first, the drives or the

motherboard?

Answer: Drives

4. What is the purpose of raised screw holes or standoffs installed between the motherboard

and desktop case?

Answer: To prevent a short that might happen if lines or circuits on the bottom of the

motherboard touch the case when the system is running.

5. When installing the front panel wires to the motherboard front panel header, how do you

know which pins to use for each wire if the pins on the header are not labeled?

Answer: You can find this information in the motherboard user guide.

6. How many pins does the CPU auxiliary power connector on a motherboard have?

Answer: 4 pins

7. Why are laptops usually more expensive than desktop computers with comparable power

and features?

Visit TestBankDeal.com to get complete for all chapters

Answer: Laptops use compact hard drives that can withstand movement even during operation,

and small memory modules and CPUs that require less voltage than regular components. In

general, it costs more to make similar components that take up less space and require less power.

8. Why is the service manual so important to have when you disassemble a laptop?

Answer: The service manual for the laptop model explains how to open the case and remove

components without damaging the case or components. Each laptop model is proprietary in

design and the ways to disassemble a laptop vary widely.

9. When a laptop internal device fails, what three options can you use to deal with the

problem?

Answer: Return the laptop to a service center for repair

Substitute an external component for the internal component

Replace the internal component

10. After you have removed the AC adapter and all peripherals, what is the next component

you should always remove before servicing any internal laptop components?

Answer: The battery pack

Thinking Critically

1. You disassemble and reassemble a desktop computer. When you first turn it on, you see no

lights and hear no sounds. Nothing appears on the monitor screen. What is the most likely

cause of the problem? Explain your answer.

a. A memory module is not seated properly in a memory slot.

b. You forgot to plug up the monitor’s external power cord.

 c. A wire in the case is obstructing a fan.

d. Power cords to the motherboard are not connected.

Answer: d. Power cords to the motherboard are not connected. All the other answers would still

cause the system to start the boot even though it might fail. If the motherboard is not getting

power, it will not start the boot.

2. You are looking to buy a laptop on a budget and want to save money by not purchasing an

extended service agreement with the manufacturer beyond the first year. What should you

consider when choosing manufacturers to limit your search? Which manufacturers would

you choose and why?

Answer: You want to be able to maintain and repair the laptop on your own after the warranty

expires. You will need access to documentation and new parts. Consider that two manufacturers,

Lenovo and Dell, provide their service manuals online free of charge. They also provide

documentation about how their laptops are disassembled and options to purchase proprietary

parts without first being an authorized service center.

3. A four-year old laptop will not boot and presents error messages on screen. You have

verified with the laptop technical support that these error messages indicate the motherboard

has failed and needs replacing. What is the first question you should ask yourself before

performing the repair?

a. Will replacing the motherboard be more costly than purchasing a new laptop?

b. Can you find a replacement motherboard?

c. Can you find the service manual to show you how to replace the motherboard?

d. Is the laptop still under warranty?

Answers:
Another random document with
no related content on Scribd:
up the young men in learning than yourself or J. Jones. We
must, among us, get the sound preachers qualified for orders.
“You are a poor writer of shorthand. Perhaps I may teach
you better when we meet.
“My partner salutes you in increasing love. Many
thousands, besides her, shall prosper, because they love our
Jerusalem. Farewell in Christ!
“C. W .“[227]

“L , February 4, 1755.
“M B ,—There is no danger of my
countenancing them, but rather of my opposing them too
fiercely. ‘Tis pity a good cause should suffer by a warm
advocate. If God gives me meekness, I shall, at the
conference, speak and not spare. Till then, it is best the matter
should sleep, or we should make the delinquents desperate,
and their associates, among the preachers, hypocrites. My
brother purposely holds his peace, that he may come to the
bottom of them. Your letters, and some others wrote with the
same honesty, have had due effect upon him; and made him
forget he was ever inclined to their party. He has spoken as
strongly of late, in behalf of the Church of England, as I could
wish, and everywhere declares he never intends to leave her.
This has made the Melchisedechians draw in their horns, and
drop their design. Sed non ego credulus illis. We must know
the heart of every preacher, and give them their choice of
church or meeting. The wound can no longer be healed
slightly. Those who are disposed to separate had best do it
while we are yet alive. Write to my brother again, and urge it
upon his conscience, whether he is not bound to prevent a
separation both before and after his death. Whether, in order
to do this, he should not take the utmost pains to settle the
preachers, discharging those who are irreclaimable, and never
receiving another without this previous condition, ‘that he
will never leave the Church.’ He is writing an excellent
treatise on the question, whether it is expedient to separate
from the Church of England, which he talks of printing. Be
very mild and loving in your next, lest he should still say,
 ‘The separatists show a better spirit than their opposers.’ You
may honestly suppose him now of our mind. I will answer for
your admission to the conference at Leeds in the beginning of
May. My brother says, his book will be out next summer. I
will allow him till next winter. Is not Nicholas Norton under
the influence of Charles Perronet? Keep copies of yours to my
brother. J. Jones will thank you for a title. I suppose you
know, W. Prior is ordained, without learning, interest, or
ought but Providence to recommend him. The Lord of the
harvest is thrusting out labourers in divers places. Mr.
Romaine, Venn, Dodd, Jones, and others here are much
blessed. Pray for them as well as us. The Lord be your
strength. Farewell in Christ!
“C. W .”[228]

These letters are not worthy of the man who wrote them. The scruples
of men like Cownley, Walsh, and the two Perronets deserved respect,
instead of being denounced as “pride,—cursed pride.” “The men,” says
Mr. Jackson, “were not children, either in years, understanding, or piety.
They were rebuked, but not convinced; and were left to utter their
complaints in all directions. To treat them in this manner was only to
restrain the evil for a time. It was not removed.”
As already stated, Charles Wesley met his brother at Birstal previous
to the opening of the conference. While there, he wrote to his wife as
follows.
“My time is chiefly spent with my brother in reading the
Dissenter’s book. He found and showed me many flaws in his
arguments against the Church, which he interweaves and
answers in his excellent treatise on that question. Mr.
Grimshaw, whom the separatists claimed for their own,
designed coming to the conference, only to take his leave of
us, if we did of the Church. All the preachers in the north are
unanimous for it. Satan has done his worst, and confirmed us
in our calling.”[229]
Early in the morning of the day after the debate in conference was
ended, Charles Wesley took his departure, without even informing his
brother of his intention; and, on his way to London, composed a poetical
“epistle to the Rev. Mr. John Wesley,” which he read, to a “crowded
audience,” at the Foundery, and printed in a 12mo tract of 16 pages, four
thousand copies being immediately put into circulation. He speaks of his
brother as his “first and last, unalienable friend”; and denounces in
withering language the unfaithful clergy,

“Who not for souls, but their own bodies care,

And leave to underlings the task of prayer.”

After describing the true members of the Church of England, he

proceeds:—

“Yet, while I warmly for her faith contend,

Shall I her blots and blemishes defend?
Inventions added in a fatal hour,
Human appendages of pomp and power
Whatever shines in outward grandeur great,
I give it up—a creature of the State!
Nor would I e’er disgrace the Church’s cause,
By penal edicts, and compulsive laws.
Let others for the shape and colour fight,
Of garments short or long, or black or white;
Or, fairly matched, in furious battle join
For and against the sponsors and the sign;
Copes, hoods, and surplices the Church miscall,
And fiercely run their heads against the wall;
Far different care is mine; o’er earth to see
Diffused her true essential piety.”

He then refers to the great revival of religion within the Church, and
adds:—

“For her, whom her apostate sons despise,

I offer up my life in sacrifice,
My life in cherishing a parent spend,
Fond of my charge, and faithful to the end.
Thrust out as from her pale, I gladly roam,
Banished myself, to bring her wanderers home.
Yet well content, so I my love may show,
 My friendly love, to be esteemed her foe,
Foe to her order, governors, and rules:
The song of drunkards, and the sport of fools;
Or, what my soul doth as hell fire reject,
A pope—a count—and leader of a sect.“

The battle was not ended. A month subsequent to the Leeds

conference, the following letter was addressed to Wesley, by his clerical
friend, the Rev. Mr. Baddiley.
“H , June 7, 1755.
“D S ,—I would speak with regard to the case debated
in your last conference at Leeds. Some of your lay itinerant
preachers had a desire, as such, to administer the sacraments
of baptism and the Lord’s supper. Now might it not be justly
said unto them, ‘Seemeth it but a small thing unto you, that
God hath separated you from among the congregation, to
bring you near to Himself, that ye thus seek the priesthood
also? Alas! alas! ye take too much upon you, ye sons of Levi.’
“What can the event be, but settling in such places as seem
most commodious to them, and then settling upon their lees?
Has not this been the general bane of scriptural Christianity?
Has it not eaten out the life of religion, and caused the power
of godliness to dwindle in Dissenters of every denomination?
For who—who can bear ease and fulness of bread?
“Be not, dear sir, estranged in your affection, nor straitened
in your bowels of love to the mother that bare you, and still
continues, notwithstanding small irregularities in you, to
dandle you on her knees. O! labour, watch, and pray, with all
your might, that no such breach be made. Wherefore should
the pickthank heathen have cause to say, ‘Where is now their
God?’ I query much, if, upon dissenting from the Established
Church, the divisions and subdivisions of the Methodists
among themselves would not exceed those of the anabaptists
in Germany.”[230]
Before leaving the subject, a few more letters must be added. The
following were addressed by Wesley to his brother.
“L , June 20, 1755.
 “D B ,—Did not you understand, that they all
promised, by Thomas Walsh, not to administer, even among
themselves? I think that a huge point given up; perhaps more
than they could give up with a clear conscience. They showed
an excellent spirit. When I (not to say you) spoke once and
again—spoke satis pro imperio, when I reflected on their
answers, I admired their spirit, and was ashamed of my own.
The practical conclusion was, ‘Not to separate from the
Church.’ Did we not all agree in this? Surely either you or I
must have been asleep, or we could not differ so widely in a
matter of fact! Here is Charles Perronet raving ‘because his
friends have given up all’; and Charles Wesley, ‘because they
have given up nothing’; and I, in the midst, staring and
wondering both at one and the other. I do not want to do
anything more, unless I could bring them over to my opinion;
and I am not in haste for that. Joseph Cownley says, ‘For such
and such reasons, I dare not hear a drunkard preach, or read
prayers’; I answer, I dare—but I cannot answer his reasons.
Adieu!
“J W .”[231]

“L , June 28, 1755.

“D B ,—Go to Ireland, if you think so, and save
Ireland. Wherever I have been in England, the societies are far
more firmly and rationally attached to the Church than ever
they were before. I have no fear about this matter. I only fear
the preachers’ or the people’s leaving, not the Church, but the
love of God, and inward or outward holiness. To this I press
them forward continually. I dare not, in conscience, spend my
time and strength on externals. If, as my lady says, all
outward establishments are Babel, so is this establishment.
Let it stand for me. I neither set it up nor pull it down. But let
you and I build up the city of God. I have often desired our
preachers to bury a corpse at Wapping; I mean, to give an
exhortation closed with prayer. I do not know, that this is any
branch of the sacerdotal office. Thomas Walsh (I will declare
it on the housetop) has given me all the satisfaction I desire,
and all that an honest man could give. I love, admire, and
honour him; and wish we had six preachers in all England of
 his spirit. But enough of this. Let us draw the saw no longer,
but use all our talents to promote the mind that was in Christ.
We have not one preacher, who either proposed, or desires, or
designs (that I know) to separate from the Church at all. Their
principles, in this single point of ordination, I do not approve;
but I pray for more and more of their spirit (in general) and
practice. Driving me may make me fluctuate; though I do not
yet. ‘When the preachers in Ireland set up for themselves,
must you not disown them?’ I answer, ‘When.’ Adieu.
“J W .”[232]

At this period the Rev. Samuel Walker was a zealous and useful
clergyman in Cornwall. Born in Exeter, he had become a graduate of
Exeter College, Oxford, and, for fourteen years, had been a minister of
the Church of England. His labours had been greatly blessed at Truro. At
least, eight hundred persons had repaired to him with the gaoler’s
question, “What must I do to be saved?” Within the last twelve months,
he had formed his converts into societies, and had drawn up rules for
their regulation. He was a deeply devoted man, and finished a laborious
and useful life within six years after the time of which we are now
writing. He was one of the friends of Wesley, who wrote to him as
follows.
“B , September 24, 1755.
“R S ,—You greatly oblige me by speaking
your thoughts so freely. All that you say concerning the
inexpediency of a separation from the Church, I readily allow;
as, likewise, that the first and main question must be, is it
lawful to separate? Accordingly, this was debated first, and
that at large, in seven or eight long conversations. And it was
then only, when we could not agree concerning this, that we
proceeded to weigh the expediency of it.”
Wesley then proceeds to state the reasons assigned by his preachers,
why they ought to separate from the Established Church, namely:—1.
Though the liturgy is, in general, possessed of rare excellence, “it is both
absurd and sinful, to declare such an assent and consent, to any merely
human composition,” as is required to it. 2. Though they did not “object
to the use of forms,” they durst “not confine themselves to them.” 3.
Because they considered the decretals of the Church as “the very dregs
of popery,” and “many of the canons as grossly wicked as absurd. The
spirit which they breathe is throughout popish and antichristian. Nothing
can be more diabolical than the ipso facto excommunications so often
denounced therein. While the whole method of executing these canons,
in our spiritual courts, is too bad to be tolerated, not in a Christian, but in
a Mahommedan or pagan nation.” 4. Because they feared that many of
the Church of England ministers neither lived the gospel, taught it, nor
knew it; and because they doubted “whether it was lawful to attend the
ministrations of those whom God had not sent to minister.” 5. Because
the doctrines preached by these clergymen were “not only wrong, but
fundamentally so, and subversive of the whole gospel.”
Having stated these as the reasons assigned for separation, Wesley
proceeds.
“I will freely acknowledge that I cannot answer these
arguments to my own satisfaction; so that my conclusion,
which I cannot yet give up, ‘that it is lawful to continue in the
Church,’ stands almost without any premises that are able to
bear its weight.
“My difficulty is very much increased by one of your
observations. I know the original doctrines of the Church are
sound; and I know her worship is, in the main, pure and
scriptural; but, if ‘the essence of the Church of England,
considered as such, consists in her orders and laws; (many of
which I, myself can say nothing for) ‘and not in her worship
and doctrines,’ those who separate from her have a far
stronger plea than I was ever sensible of.
“At present, I apprehend those, and those only, to separate
from the Church, who either renounce her fundamental
doctrines, or refuse to join in her public worship. As yet, we
have done neither; nor have we taken one step further than we
were convinced was our bounden duty. It is from a full
conviction of this, that we have—(1) preached abroad; (2)
prayed extempore; (3) formed societies; and (4) permitted
preachers who were not episcopally ordained. And were we
pushed on this side, were there no alternative allowed, we
should judge it our bounden duty, rather wholly to separate
from the Church, than to give up any one of these points.
 Therefore, if we cannot stop a separation without stopping lay
preachers, the case is clear: we cannot stop it at all.
“‘But if we permit them, should we not do more? Should
we not appoint them? Since the bare permission puts the
matter out of our hands, and deprives us of all our influence?’
In great measure it does; therefore, to appoint them is far
more expedient, if it be lawful. But is it lawful for presbyters,
circumstanced as we are, to appoint other ministers? This is
the very point wherein we desire advice, being afraid of
leaning to our own understanding.
“It is undoubtedly needful, as you observe, to come to
some resolution on this point, and the sooner the better. I,
therefore, rejoice to hear that you think, ‘this matter may be
better, and more inoffensively ordered; and that a method may
be found, which, conducted with prudence and patience, will
reduce the constitution of Methodism to due order, and render
the Methodists, under God, more instrumental to the ends of
practical religion.’ This, sir, is the very thing I want. I must,
therefore, beg your sentiments on this head; and that as
particularly as your other engagements will allow. I remain,
reverend dear sir,
“Your obliged and affectionate brother and
servant,
“J W .”[233]

All must admit, that this is a most important letter. It proves three
momentous facts. 1. That the conference of 1755 could not come to an
agreement as to the lawfulness of separating from the Church of
England; and that the only point settled was as to the present expediency
of such a separation. 2. That the arguments used, in favour of a
separation, were arguments which Wesley was not able to answer to his
own satisfaction. And, 3. That rather than give up open air preaching,
extemporaneous prayer, forming societies, and permitting men not
episcopally ordained to preach, Wesley would wholly separate himself
from the Established Church.
Wesley’s position was peculiar. Of all the Methodist clergymen then
existing, he was the only one who evinced a willingness to look the
difficulties of the situation fairly in the face. His brother was furious.
Grimshaw threatened to leave the Methodists if the Methodists left the
Church. Baddiley unworthily taunted the lay preachers with aspiring
after priestly honours. Walker evidently held strong opinions against the
contemplated movement. And Whitefield wrote to Lady Huntingdon as
follows.
“N , September 24, 1755.
“Oh, how hath my pleasure been alloyed at Leeds! I
rejoiced there with trembling; for, unknown to me, they had
almost finished a large house in order to form a separate
congregation. If this scheme succeeds, an awful separation, I
fear, will take place among the societies. I have written to Mr.
Wesley, and have done all I could to prevent it. Oh this self
love, this self will! It is the devil of devils.”[234]
Another clergyman, who was consulted in this emergency, was the
Rev. Thomas Adam, rector of Wintringham, near Malton, in Yorkshire,
two years older than Wesley, born and educated in Leeds, a graduate of
Christ’s College, Cambridge, who obtained the Wintringham living at the
age of twenty-three, and retained it for about sixty years, until his death
in 1784. Mr. Adam wrote to Wesley as follows.
“W , October 10, 1755.
“R S ,—As you are pleased to desire my opinion
on ‘a formal separation of the Methodists from the Church of
England,’ I shall make no apology for giving it to you in as
explicit a manner as I can.
“As you are not satisfied, in your conscience, of the
lawfulness of a separation in form, but, on the contrary, have
advanced many reasons against it, methinks your way is plain
before you. If any considerable number of the Methodists
should persist in carrying their design of separation into
execution, you and others, your present scruples subsisting,
will be obliged in conscience to disavow, and declare openly
against it. Your present embarrassments are very great, and
should be a warning to all how they venture upon a revolt
from the authority and standing rules of the church to which
they belong. I fear, sir, that your saying, you do not appoint,
but only approve of the lay preachers, from a persuasion of
their call and fitness, savours of disingenuity. Where is the
 difference? Under whose sanction do they act? Would they
think their call a sufficient warrant for commencing preachers
without your approbation, tacit or express? And what is their
preaching upon this call, but a manifest breach upon the order
of the Church, and an inlet to confusion? Upon the whole,
therefore, I submit to your serious consideration, whether the
separation is not wide enough already, particularly in the
instance of unordained persons preaching, and gathering
societies to themselves wherever they can; and whether all the
Methodists might not serve the interests of Christ better, by
returning to a closer union with the Church, and repairing the
breach they have made, than by making it still wider, and
separating, what they think, the gospel leaven from the
lump?”[235]
The following is Wesley’s answer.
“L , October 31, 1755.
“R S ,—You have much obliged me by your clear
and friendly answer; with the main of which I fully agree: for
I am still in my former sentiment—‘We will not go out; if we
are thrust out, well.’ And of the same judgment are, I believe,
nineteen in twenty of our preachers, and an equal majority of
the people. We are fully convinced, that, to separate from an
established church is never lawful but when it is absolutely
necessary; and we do not see any such necessity yet.
Therefore, we have, at present, no thoughts of separation.
“With regard to the steps we have hitherto taken, we have
used all the caution which was possible. We have done
nothing rashly, nothing without deep and long consideration,
and much prayer. Nor have we taken one deliberate step, of
which we, as yet, see reason to repent. It is true, in some
things, we vary from the rules of the Church; but no further
than we apprehend is our bounden duty. It is from a full
conviction of this, that we preach abroad, use extemporary
prayer, form those who appear to be awakened into societies,
and permit laymen, whom we believe God has called, to
preach.
“I say permit, because we ourselves have hitherto viewed it
in no other light. This we are clearly satisfied we may do; that
we may do more, we are not satisfied. It is not clear to us, that
presbyters, so circumstanced as we are, may appoint or
ordain others; but it is, that we may direct, as well as suffer
them to do, what we conceive they are moved to by the Holy
Ghost. It is true, that, in ordinary cases, both an inward and
an outward call are requisite. But we apprehend there is
something far from ordinary in the present case; and, upon
the calmest view of things, we think, they, who are only
called of God, and not of man, have more right to preach than
they who are only called of man, and not of God. Now that
many of the clergy, though called of man, are not called of
God to preach His gospel is undeniable: 1. Because they
themselves utterly disclaim, nay, and ridicule the inward call.
2. Because they do not know what the gospel is: of
consequence, they do not and cannot preach it.
“This, at present, is my chief embarrassment. That I have
not gone too far yet, I know; but whether I have gone far
enough, I am extremely doubtful. I see those running whom
God hath not sent; destroying their own souls, and those that
hear them. Unless I warn, in all ways I can, these perishing
souls of their danger, am I clear of the blood of these men?
Soul damning clergymen lay me under more difficulties than
soul saving laymen!
“Those among ourselves, who have been in doubt, whether
they ought so to beware of these false prophets, as not to hear
them at all, are not men of a ‘forward, uncharitable zeal;’ but
of a calm, loving, temperate spirit. They are perfectly easy as
to their own call to preach; but they are sometimes afraid, that
the countenancing these blind guides is a dead weight even on
those clergymen who are really called of God. ‘Why else,’ say
they, ‘does not God bless their labours?’ We know several
regular clergymen who preach the genuine gospel, but to no
effect at all. There is one exception in England: Mr. Walker,
of Truro. We do not know one more, who has converted one
soul in his own parish. If it be said, ‘Has not Mr. Grimshaw
and Mr. Baddiley?’ No, not one, till they were irregular: till
both the one and the other formed irregular societies, and
took in laymen to assist them. Can there be a stronger proof
 that God is pleased with irregular, even more than with
regular preaching?”[236]
No apology is needed for the insertion of these long extracts. In these
days,—when the reunion, amalgamation, or absorption of the Methodists
with the Church of England, is exciting so much attention, they deserve
to be read with more than ordinary interest. A recurrence to the subject
will often be necessary; but, for the present, we must leave it, and track
the footsteps of Wesley during the remainder of the year 1755.
The conference at Leeds being concluded, he left that town, on the
12th of May, for Newcastle, where he found some of the Methodists had
left the Church already, and others were on the point of doing so, and all,
“as they supposed, on his authority!” Three weeks were spent in the
Newcastle circuit. He then set out for London, and, at the end of the first
day’s journey, reached Osmotherley.[237]
Here he made strict inquiry concerning an event of recent occurrence,
and which at the time excited great attention. Osmotherley lies nestled
nearly at the foot of a long mountain range, known by the name of Black
Hambleton. A few weeks before, a part of the mountain consisting of a
vast ridge of rock, called Whiston Cliff, was split asunder, amid a sound
as of rolling thunder. On March 25, there was a loud noise issuing from
the mountain, but nothing more. Next day, a huge piece of the rocky
precipice, fifteen yards thick, ten high, and above twenty broad, was torn
from the mountain side and thrown into the valley. The ground shook,
and immense stones, of several tons weight, rose like giants out of the
ground below, and rolled to and fro with marvellous velocity. On the
three succeeding days, the ground continued trembling; in many places
the earth clave asunder; and huge rocks turned upside down and moved
in all directions. Patches of ground, as much as fifty yards in diameter,
were lifted bodily, and, burdened with rocks and even trees, were
removed to a considerable distance, without the least fissure being
created by the transit. In a space of about forty acres, the earth was cleft
in a thousand places, while the cliff, from which the rest was torn, was
white as snow, and, glittering in the sunlight, was visible at a distance of
many miles.
Wesley, at all times keenly alive to the supernatural, took the deepest
interest in this phenomenon. At Osmotherley, he met with eye and ear
witnesses of this strange occurrence. He went with one of them, Edward
Abbot, a weaver, to the spot, and “walked, crept and climbed, round and
over great part of the ruins.” He wrote a description of what he saw,
which was published in the London Magazine, the Gentleman’s
Magazine, the Public Advertiser, and other periodicals. He endeavoured
to account for the phenomenon, and came to the conclusion, that it was
not produced by any “merely natural cause,—fire, water, or air, but by
God Himself,” who arose to shake terribly the earth; and who purposely
chose such a place, where there was so great a concourse of nobility and
gentry every year.[238] This excited the ire of an anonymous contributor
to the Gentleman’s Magazine, who declared that he had “caused an
inquiry to be made into the fact, at no small trouble and expense; and
found the whole to be a falsehood, without the least degree of truth for
its foundation.” A more audacious lie than this, it is difficult to imagine;
and yet it was published. A few months later, Wesley wrote as follows to
the editor of that periodical.
“B , March 8, 1756.
“M . U ,—I have met with many persons in my life,
who did not abound with modesty; but I never yet met with
one who had less of it than your anonymous correspondent.
The whole account of Whiston Cliff, inserted in one of your
magazines, I aver to be punctually true, having been an eye
witness of every particular of it. And if F. D. will set his
name, and aver the contrary, I will make him ashamed, unless
shame and he have shook hands, and parted.
“Yours, etc.,
“J W .”

The editor adds, that, if his anonymous correspondent does not make
good his assertion, he is treated in Wesley’s letter with less severity than
he deserves. This evoked a communication from a man who afterwards
rose to fame in the literary world. John Langhorne, who, besides
numerous other works, became the well known translator of Plutarch’s
Lives, was now in his twentieth year, and a private tutor in the
neighbourhood of Thirsk. Having read the impudent mendacity of F. D.,
he wrote to Mr. Urban, stating that he himself had visited the scene of
this strange upheaving, and fully confirmed Wesley’s statement. Thus
terminated this earthquake episode in Wesley’s history.
From Whiston Cliff, Wesley went to Thirsk, and then to York, the
society at the latter place being, number for number, the richest he had in
England. “I hope,” says he, “that York will not prove, as Cork has done,
the Capua of our preachers.” He reached London on the 16th of June,
and wrote:—
“From a deep sense of the amazing work which God has of
late years wrought in England, I preached, in the evening, on
those words (Psalm cxlvii. 20), ‘He hath not dealt so with any
nation;’ no, not even with Scotland or New England. In both
these, God has indeed made bare His arm; yet not in so
astonishing a manner as among us. This must appear to all
who impartially consider—(1) The numbers of persons on
whom God has wrought. (2) The swiftness of His work in
many, both convinced and truly converted in a few days. (3)
The depth of it in most of these, changing the heart, as well as
the whole conversation. (4) The clearness of it, enabling them
boldly to say, ‘Thou hast loved me, Thou hast given Thyself
for me.’ (5) The continuance of it. God has wrought in
Scotland and New England, at several times, for some weeks
or months together; but, among us, He has wrought for near
eighteen years together, without any observable intermission.
Above all, let it be remarked, that a considerable number of
the clergy were engaged in that great work in Scotland; and,
in New England, above a hundred, perhaps as eminent as any
in the whole province, not only for piety, but also for abilities,
both natural and acquired; whereas, in England, there were
only two or three inconsiderable clergymen, with a few
young, raw, unlettered men; and those opposed by well-nigh
all the clergy, as well as laity, in the nation. He that remarks
this must needs own, both that this is a work of God, and that
He hath not wrought so in any other nation.”
Immediately after his return to London, Wesley entered into an
important correspondence, which lasted for the next nine months, and
which, in 1760, was published in an octavo pamphlet of 52 pages, with
the title, “Original Letters between the Reverend Mr. John Wesley, and
Mr. Richard Tompson, respecting the Doctrine of Assurance, as held by
the former: Wherein that Tenet is fully examined. With some Strictures
on Christian Perfection.” Richard Tompson was no ordinary man. He
makes no pretension to any knowledge of the learned languages; but he
was unquestionably well acquainted with his own. Without the
advantages of early education, he had, by great assiduity in reading,
mastered the science of divinity, and was a respectable proficient in the
study of literature in general. He was evidently a man of powerful mind,
and there is the greatest fairness in his reasoning. Wesley wrote: “Of all
the disputants I have known, you are the most likely to convince me of
any mistakes I may be in; because you have found out the great secret of
speaking the truth in love.” This was praise which Tompson well
merited. From first to last, there is nothing in his letters but what is
consonant with the highest respect and sincerest love. And yet, he pins
his opponent with consummate skill, states his objections in the clearest
light, and deduces his conclusions with a power which Wesley found it
difficult to resist. In former years, he had been a Methodist; at present he
was not. Still, he was a man of enlightened and earnest piety, and of a
sober and exemplary life. All his letters, except the last, were
anonymous; not because he was doubtful of his tenets, or ashamed of the
doctrines he was endeavouring to defend, but because he not
unreasonably apprehended, that, if his name was given, his letters might
not be read, nor receive the attention which, he knew their intrinsic worth
deserved. When he divulged his name, Wesley, like a Christian
gentleman, instead of being annoyed at being betrayed into a
correspondence with one of whom he had spoken in his Journal
somewhat disparagingly, addressed him with brotherly affection, and
concluded this remarkable and able correspondence thus: “Your reasons
for concealing your name were good: we cannot too carefully guard
against prejudice. You have no need of any excuse at all. For you have
done no wrong, but rather a pleasure, to your affectionate brother, J
W .”
Wesley’s letters are published in his collected works; but, of course,
unaccompanied by Tompson’s; and, without the latter, no one can form a
correct opinion concerning this courteous and loving contest. Our own
honest conviction is, that Tompson is the master. It is true that, in the
main matter of dispute, the difference between the two was more
imaginary than real,—more in words than fact; but we feel bound to say,
that, in managing the argument, Wesley, either for want of time or want
of something else, is worsted.
The subject of Christian perfection is summarily dismissed. Tompson
quotes texts of Scripture, and appeals to history, and concludes with an
argument which has been elaborated in modern days: “Suppose that two
persons, absolutely free from the corruption of human nature, should
marry and have children, it is very evident, that they could convey no
corruption of nature to their offspring, nor they to theirs, even to the
remotest generations: and, therefore, this new species of mankind would
stand in no need of a Saviour; that is, in no need of Christ’s
righteousness to justify them; in no need of His Spirit to enable them to
do their duty, they being possessed of that rectitude of nature which will
enable them to act entirely for themselves.”
This is quoted, not for its soundness, but, merely to show how feebly
one of the ablest logicians of his age confronted it. The following is the
whole of Wesley’s answer: “As to Christian perfection, I believe two,
who were made perfect in love, never did, or will, marry together.” This
was not argument, but assumption; and Tompson was not slow to avail
himself of his advantage. In his next communication he asks, “Why is
the marriage state proper for those only who are tainted with sin and
corruption?” He reminds his opponent, that two persons, Adam and Eve,
absolutely free from sin, have been married, and that by the express
command of God Himself. Besides, he asks, “Suppose that two persons,
already married, should attain to such a state,—the very same
consequences would inevitably follow; and, I suppose, you will hardly
venture to affirm, that God will never make any married couple (capable
of having children) perfect. If you did, I should ask you first, what
ground you had for such an arbitrary hypothesis? and secondly, how you
came to marry yourself, when you judged it would be an infallible means
of keeping either yourself, or your wife, from that state which is of all
others the most desirable?” Wesley, like a prudent man, attempted no
reply to this; and so the matter ended.
It will thus be seen, that the doctrine of Christian perfection was not
fairly and fully discussed by the two friendly antagonists. Their main
subject of dispute was this: “that no person is a true believer in Christ,
but he who either certainly knows, or has known, by the immediate
revelation of the Holy Ghost, that his sins are forgiven.” Tompson
argues, that the definition of faith given by the Church of England,—“a
sure trust or confidence in God that my sins are forgiven,” applies not to
that faith “which is the immediate proximate cause of justification,” but
to that faith which follows after justification. Wesley’s reply to this, in
brief, was: “I agree with you, that justifying faith cannot be a conviction
that I am justified; but still, I believe that it implies such a conviction.”
Further correspondence followed, and Wesley’s opinion, just given, was
modified to this extent: “I believe there are some instances of a man who
has not a clear assurance that his sins are forgiven, being in a state of
justification.” This, in substance, was all that Tompson contended for;
and so terminated one of the most friendly controversies in Wesley’s
history. No man was more open to conviction than Wesley was; no man
was more sincerely in search of truth; no man met a reasonable opponent
in a more loving spirit. “If,” said he, in his first reply to Tompson, “if
you have observed anything in any of the tracts I have published, which
you think is not agreeable to Scripture or reason, you will oblige me by
pointing out, and by communicating to me any remarks you have
occasionally made. I seek two things in this world—truth and love;
whoever assists me in this search is a friend indeed.”
While on the subject of controversy, it may be added, that during the
year 1755 a furious attack was made upon the Methodists, in an octavo
pamphlet of 37 pages, entitled, “An Apology for the Clergy; with a view
to expose the groundless assertions of a late Commentator on the 107th
Psalm; and to undeceive the admirers of certain popular declaimers, by
showing the dangerous consequences of their manner of preaching.” In
this precious morceau, the Wesleys and their fellow Methodists are
spoken of as “giving vent to the rankest enthusiasm,”—as captivating the
people “with unintelligible jargon,” and “importing contraband doctrines
into pulpits” which they had no right to enter. These were hard words,
but hardly worth answering.
Another kindred publication was issued, with the title, “A Dissertation
on Enthusiasm, showing the danger of its late increase. By Thomas
Green, M.A., vicar of Wymeswould, Leicestershire.” 8vo, 219 pages. In
this, the Methodists were likened, not only to papists, but to
Mahommedans, and fanatics of all descriptions. It was too late for
scurrilous publications like these to obtain, or to deserve an answer. Like
their authors, they soon sank into well merited oblivion.
On the 30th of June, Wesley set out for Norwich, where he spent the
next four days, and spoke personally to each member of the society. On
returning to London, at the request of “a friendly gentlewoman,” he
became a witness to her will, wherein she bequeathed part of her estates
to charitable uses; and part, during his natural life, to her dog Toby. “I
suppose,” says he, “her legacy to Toby may stand good; but that to the
poor is null and void, by the statute of mortmain!” He dined with one
who, for many years, was one of the most celebrated beauties in Europe;
but who, suffering from a painful and nauseous disease, was now
literally rotting. He called upon an old friend, after a separation of
sixteen years, found him a beggar, forsaken by all his old acquaintance,
and offered him all the assistance in his power. He held the first
Methodist covenant service, at the French church in Spitalfields, above
eighteen hundred persons standing up in testimony of their assent to the
tenor of the covenant, still in use among the Methodist societies.
On the 18th of August, he started for Cornwall. On the way, he
preached to “sleepy congregations” at Reading and at Salisbury. At
Shaftesbury, he found a more lively people. In Cornwall, his
congregations were large and attentive. Even at Helstone, all were quiet,
except two drunken men, one of whom soon walked away, and the other
fell asleep on his horse’s neck. At Breage, the lions were now changed
into lambs, though their wretched minister had told them, from the
pulpit, a few years before, that John Wesley was expelled from the
Oxford university for being the father of a bastard child; and that all the
Methodists, at their private meetings, put out the lights. In the interval,
this mendacious priest had grown thoughtful and melancholy, and had
hanged himself. At St. Ives, Wesley visited a young attorney, who had
attended the Methodist preaching, but who now sung, and swore, and
screamed, and cursed, as if possessed by legion; now, however, after
prayer, he sunk down into a state of quietude. At St. Just, Wesley
preached on the foundation stone of the new Methodist meeting-house;
and, at Launceston, in a gentleman’s dining room, capable of containing
a congregation of some hundreds.
Having spent three weeks in Cornwall, he returned to Bristol to finish
his “Notes on the New Testament.” During this Cornish tour, he was
accompanied by Michael Fenwick, whom he pronounces to be “an
excellent groom, valet de chambre, nurse, and, upon occasion, a tolerable
preacher.”[239] He wrote to his friend Blackwell as follows.
“R , August 31, 1755.
“D S ,—In my last journey into the north, all my
patience was put to the proof again and again, and all my
endeavours to please; yet without success. In my present
journey, I leap, as broke from chains. I am content with
whatever entertainment I meet with, and my companions are
always in good humour, ‘because they are with me,’ This
must be the spirit of all who take journeys with me. If a
dinner ill dressed, a hard bed, a poor room, a shower of rain,
or a dirty road, will put them out of humour, it lays a burden
upon me, greater than all the rest put together. By the grace of
 God, I never fret; I repine at nothing; I am discontented with
nothing. And to have persons at my ear, fretting and
murmuring at everything, is like tearing the flesh off my
bones. I see God sitting upon His throne, and ruling all things
well. Peace be with you all.
“I am, etc.
“J W .”[240]

At the end of October, he returned to London, and, on the first Sunday

after his arrival, read prayers, preached, and gave the sacrament, at
Snow’s Fields, in the morning; preached and gave the sacrament at noon
in West Street chapel; met the leaders at three; buried a corpse at four;
preached at five; and afterwards met the society, and concluded the day
with a general lovefeast.
Whitefield had returned from America in the month of May, and
wrote: “The poor despised Methodists are as lively as ever; and, in
several churches, the gospel is now preached with power. Many, in
Oxford, are awakened to a knowledge of the truth, and I have heard
almost every week of some fresh minister or another that seems
determined to know nothing but Jesus Christ, and Him crucified. The
greatest venom is spit out against Mr. Romaine, who, having been
reputed a great scholar, is now looked upon and treated as a great
fool.”[241]
On November 5, after a long separation, Wesley and Whitefield met in
London. “Disputings,” writes the former, “are now no more: we love one
another, and join hand in hand to promote the cause of our common
Master.” The remainder of the year was spent in the metropolis and its
immediate vicinity.
At this period, John Fletcher, afterwards vicar of Madeley, was a
young man, twenty-six years of age, and officiated as private tutor to the
two sons of Thomas Hill, Esq., at Tern Hall, in Shropshire. He had
recently been converted, principally by the instrumentality of the
Methodists, and had already formed a warm attachment to Wesley, which
continued to increase until his death, in 1785. One of his first letters to
the great Methodistic leader, perhaps the very first, was dated “London,
November 29, 1755,” and is, in all respects, a remarkable production. He
expresses a conviction that the end of the world is near at hand, and
adduces elaborated reasons for this opinion. He confesses his belief in
the second coming of our Saviour; in His making war among His
enemies; and in His personal reign on earth for a thousand years.
Fletcher’s millenarian letter is far too long to be inserted here; it may be
read in the Methodist Magazine for 1793; and is of some importance, as
showing, that the millenarian theory, which is now attracting so much
attention, found considerable favour among some of the most
distinguished of the first Methodists. We shall have to recur to this
important subject at a future period.
Before leaving the year 1755, it only remains to review Wesley’s
publications.
At the commencement of the year, an anonymous octavo pamphlet, of
32 pages, was published, entitled “Queries humbly proposed to the Right
Reverend and Right Honourable Count Zinzendorf.” James Hutton, who
was Zinzendorf’s chief disciple, believed this to be the work of
Wesley;[242] and, after a careful examination, we are bound to say, that
we concur in this belief;[243] and as the pamphlet is extremely rare and
also curious, a brief analysis of its contents may not be unacceptable.
The Queries are arranged under ten divisions, and the writer hopes the
count will give “speedy, plain, positive, categorical answers.” He also
states, that, in these Queries, he has “summed up, as briefly as possible,
the most material parts of the charges against the Moravians.” Viewed in
such a light, the pamphlet is of great importance. The following are
specimens.
“I. With regard to yourself and your community. 1. Do you
permit the Brethren to style you ‘The angel of the church of
Philadelphia’? 2. Do not they almost implicitly believe your
assertions, and obey your directions? 3. Do not you think
yourself, as a teacher, equal to any of the apostles? 4. Do not
you believe your doctrinal writings are of equal authority with
the Bible? 5. Do not you judge your church to be the only true
church under heaven; and the members of it the only true
Christians on earth? 6. Are the Brethren the 144,000
mentioned in the Revelation? 7. Is it honest to term
yourselves the Moravian church, when you know you are not
the Moravian church? 8. Do you yourself expect to be judged
at the last day? 9. Do you believe a thousand souls of the
wicked will be saved in that day at your intercession?